HW & OS specifications for Video Studio

steve_e · Post by **steve_e** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:06 pm

Hi all -
Apologies if this is covered extensively elsewhere but I couldn't find a recent topic that covered all the questions I have in mind - if there is one, I'd be grateful for a link. I'm using Video Studio X2 Pro and have a camcorder that records in HD (AVCHD).

I've been trying to work out what it's most important to look for when considering either upgrading or buying a new machine if the usage is going to be mainly for video editing. For example:

OS - I've heard that XP isn't very good at making use of the processing power of graphics cards. Is this significant? Will it make a big difference to go for a 64 bit OS because of its ability to address more memory, or has Video Studio been designed to take advantage of 64 bit processing?

PC - Is a good graphics card going to make a big difference, and what features of a graphics card would help? Or is the processor the main important factor. If so, would a Quad Core processor be significantly better than a Core2Duo? Why? Is the amount of Ram a big factor (and therefore is the 64 bit OS option good because it makes much more RAM available?

For example, I saw a Sony Vaio recently that claims to be optimized for video editing. Do its specs have significant advantages over any other modern relatively well specced machine? The model can be seen here if it is useful to discuss a particular PC, although I'm only using it as an example, not suggesting that I might be thinking of buying it...

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/vn-aw-series/vgn-aw41zf-b

I'd be interested in your views if there isn't already a tutorial or sticky post available.

Regards, Steve

mitchell65 · Post by **mitchell65** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:33 pm

I'd want a lot more than dual core processor and 4Gb RAM if I were thinking of spending 1400 pounds. I'd be looking for an Intel Core i7 processor. Do you really need a notebook? If a PC is going to work hard then cooling fans become more important. Notebooks tend to get hot with extended use which video editing definitely means. It's down to the amount a open space within the case. Much more space and cooling fan power in a tower!

steve_e · Post by **steve_e** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:57 pm

Do you really need a laptop?

Not at all John, which is why I was just after general information. I've got an ageing PC with the first of the core 2 duo processors in it running XP Professional, and a lovely well ventilated Antec case. I put it together about four years ago and would be very happy to spend some time upgrading that.

But I'm a bit out of date with my computer knowledge (eg I don't really know what an intel core i7 entails). So that's why I was asking about the relative merits of the overall architecture. It would be very easy to upgrade the processor within the current motherboard I think. But would it be better to upgrade an OS as well? Or if I move to a Quad Core I'd need to change the motherboard - in which case I'd also need to change the OS (I only have an OEM licence for XP).

All these things seem pretty interlinked which is why I'd like to know what has the biggest impact on the performance of Video Studio.

joosuna · Post by **joosuna** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:58 pm

I would recommend the quad core intel i-7 with hyperthreading...in my humble opinion that would allow better use of the cpu for multi tasking....I am not sure if the software at this time takes advantage of that..perhaps some one else can answer that question

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:49 pm

As far as we are aware, VS is not written to take advantage of multiple cores, though who knows what future versions might bring...? I personally have written in another thread on this Board about a small, cheap program I bought (Ashampoo Core Tuner) which has definitely improved rendering speeds on my Quad 6600 -- though these vary according to the format being rendered, whether SD, AVCHD or HDV... But with Windows Task Manager operating, one can actually see the significant difference in the use of multiple cores with or without Core Tuner operating...

steve_e · Post by **steve_e** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:27 am

And is a 64 bit OS likely to make a difference? I don't seem to see much discussion of this anywhere?

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:32 am

As far as I am aware, the major difference that 64-bit Windows makes is to take advantage of RAM above 3.5 GB (which is about the limit of what 32-bit can use...) Having extra RAM available is just about always useful, but I seem to recall some problems 64-bit users were having with X2, particularly in Windows 7. X2 and its predecessors were not written with a version specifically for 64-bit...

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:47 pm

I have noticed that we get lots of posts on these various forums where users have discovered they have problems with their software when installed on 64 bit systems. Perhaps that is because we have more members with 64 bit systems that we do with 32 bit systems, or (more likely) it is because the software was written for a 32 bit system.

steve_e · Post by **steve_e** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:13 pm

Thanks both. I guess I just find it odd that probably the most PC intensive type of commercial application (video editing) doesn't take full advantage of the available technology.

But I suppose I can see it from the designer's point of view as well. Apparently it's fairly straightforward to simply recompile an application to run in a 64 bit environment, but optimizing it to run in that environment and use the extra power is likely to require substantial code re-writing. Which means you would then have to maintain and develop two different programs, and if the vast majority of people still use 32 bit systems, it would be too expensive to do so.